Trump to win?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump to win?

You are missing the point I was trying to make; which was not about any form of political name or institution; instead I want to talk about where/who spends the money..... Once we look beyond a congress or parliament, it is who actually spends the money that is where I am placing this part of the debate. Here in the UK we call that organisation the Civil Service, I do not have a similar name for the US, but let me use "Administration". If we look at this as a matter of ethics, and we assume either the civil service or the US administration has been formed, over more than the past century, to act within what one might describe as the highest ethics, then it is surely possible to argue that none of what we are debating today could have ever occurred for the very simple reason that neither the civil service nor the US administration would have permitted it to set off in the first place; they would have refused to.

Instead, what we each have, on either side of the pond, is administrations that have grown large on the back of the political corruption. One can also argue that they have no incentive whatever to change their ways; that their systematic cover-up of everything that has been wrong is the real, underlying problem that must be addressed; perhaps with even more urgency than the political.

Indeed, this is as urgent a problem within almost every so called Western nation today.

I see your point, Chris. Here in the U.S. we also call that part of our government the Civil Service - employees who report to a desk every day to collect taxes and fees, and spend that money buying goods and services.

One thing that confounds these conversations is our specific meaning of the word "corruption"
Because it is such a powerfully negative word filled with awful connotation, people have starting using it to describe almost any behavior they don't like, legal or not.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

The worst that will happen is an attempt to prevent very late term abortions where the fetus can live outside the womb.And the mother's health will be the key; if an abortion is necessary to save the mother it will be permitted even with very late term situations.

A woman has a right to an abortion but also a responsibility to get it done in the first two trimesters.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

On top of all the other problems underlying everything else. I'm not minimizing your point Chris, except maybe by suggesting that there are limits to what can be reasonably expected in the short term. We can hope for three signature outcomes this term and little else - a big effort against corruption, border and immigration enforcement, and infrastructure investment. Trump will be successful to the extent that he can focus and deliver on those items. He's got until the midterms to show progress on all three.

Everybody is playing nice right now, in that strange DC tradition of calling your opponent awful names on Monday only to praise him on Tuesday. We'll see how long that lasts because Trump has to show seriousness in meeting the promise to drain the swamp. In practice, that's going to mean taking down several DNC and related lobbyist bigwigs and likely one or two from the GOP side to demonstrate independence. Knowing Trump, I bet they might even have a "stretch goal" of bagging a Lloyd Blankenfeld-sized bankster before 2020 is out. I expect HRC will be pardoned if it looks as bad as it seems for her and they can't find a fall guy of sufficient status to serve as a proxy sacrifice. But there will be perp walks, count on it.

Unless the Sanders people and other responsible adults in the DNC preempt Trump by kicking the worst of the bunch out of the inner party, I expect the Clintonistas will go to the mattresses and try to rally the troops around them. Usually they're at they're best when they have their back to the wall like this, only without the benefits of state power, they're defanged, stripped of their ability to deliver gifts, and so more vulnerable now than ever before.

I think the principals are coordinating and getting their stories straight in expectation of the Hell to be unleashed on them come the next Congress. If they're smart - and they are - they're doing everything possible to avoid organizing themselves into a circular firing squad.



The time for the Sanders people to act is short. Game of Thrones and House of Cards has nothing on the drama unfolding behind the curtain now.

You are missing the point I was trying to make; which was not about any form of political name or institution; instead I want to talk about where/who spends the money..... Once we look beyond a congress or parliament, it is who actually spends the money that is where I am placing this part of the debate. Here in the UK we call that organisation the Civil Service, I do not have a similar name for the US, but let me use "Administration". If we look at this as a matter of ethics, and we assume either the civil service or the US administration has been formed, over more than the past century, to act within what one might describe as the highest ethics, then it is surely possible to argue that none of what we are debating today could have ever occurred for the very simple reason that neither the civil service nor the US administration would have permitted it to set off in the first place; they would have refused to.

Instead, what we each have, on either side of the pond, is administrations that have grown large on the back of the political corruption. One can also argue that they have no incentive whatever to change their ways; that their systematic cover-up of everything that has been wrong is the real, underlying problem that must be addressed; perhaps with even more urgency than the political.

Indeed, this is as urgent a problem within almost every so called Western nation today.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Isn't that where we are right now?
The democratic party exists, but it does not govern at any level, except in a few states.

No, I don't think it's quite as grim as that. There are hundreds of Democrats in the House and Senate, thousands more in the state houses, tens and hundreds of thousands working the various agencies, and they dominate K street and the NGOs. Not dead yet.

We need to give this time to shake out and see what Trump will do. See what the Democrats will do in counter. Both parties need to go after and keep/win the voters who put Trump in the White House by promoting policies that help them directly and with immediacy. There are powerful and massively capitalized centrifugal forces that will move Heaven and Earth to keep Trump and the Democrats from doing precisely that, because it's their ass if they don't.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump to win?

...When the dust clears, America could find itself governed by a one-party state....

Isn't that where we are right now?
The democratic party exists, but it does not govern at any level, except in a few states.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

That still leaves the underlying problem of the corrupt civil, (as against political), administration that has so successfully supported the corrupt politicals; I must add, that that is not just an American problem.

On top of all the other problems underlying everything else. I'm not minimizing your point Chris, except maybe by suggesting that there are limits to what can be reasonably expected in the short term. We can hope for three signature outcomes this term and little else - a big effort against corruption, border and immigration enforcement, and infrastructure investment. Trump will be successful to the extent that he can focus and deliver on those items. He's got until the midterms to show progress on all three.

Everybody is playing nice right now, in that strange DC tradition of calling your opponent awful names on Monday only to praise him on Tuesday. We'll see how long that lasts because Trump has to show seriousness in meeting the promise to drain the swamp. In practice, that's going to mean taking down several DNC and related lobbyist bigwigs and likely one or two from the GOP side to demonstrate independence. Knowing Trump, I bet they might even have a "stretch goal" of bagging a Lloyd Blankenfeld-sized bankster before 2020 is out. I expect HRC will be pardoned if it looks as bad as it seems for her and they can't find a fall guy of sufficient status to serve as a proxy sacrifice. But there will be perp walks, count on it.

Unless the Sanders people and other responsible adults in the DNC preempt Trump by kicking the worst of the bunch out of the inner party, I expect the Clintonistas will go to the mattresses and try to rally the troops around them. Usually they're at they're best when they have their back to the wall like this, only without the benefits of state power, they're defanged, stripped of their ability to deliver gifts, and so more vulnerable now than ever before.

I think the principals are coordinating and getting their stories straight in expectation of the Hell to be unleashed on them come the next Congress. If they're smart - and they are - they're doing everything possible to avoid organizing themselves into a circular firing squad.



The time for the Sanders people to act is short. Game of Thrones and House of Cards has nothing on the drama unfolding behind the curtain now.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

You ain't kidding. They never saw it coming because they never took time to understand really who they were running against and the source of his appeal. It was far easier to insult Trump supporters and to paint them as subhuman so as to make the social costs of support so high that folks chose to lie to each other and pollsters rather than to risk being called a racist, xenophobe, misogynist homophobe, etc. This has to be the worst electoral strategy in the history of American elections and the outcome proves it beyond a doubt as far as I am concerned. Live by identity politics, die by it too.

The Democratic Party as currently organized is a zombie, a dead man walking. Its only hope is for the Clintonistas to be purged and the leadership to be replaced by Sanders people. If they aren't, then you can count on practically the whole of the Democratic leadership down even into the state level to be subject to intensive investigative scrutiny leading many to eventual arrest and conviction.

I think if we fail to clean house in the Democratic Party, if we allow the Clinton family to remain entrenched in the DNC and maintain control of all the levers of significance, they will continue to starve out any sort of political challenger and ensure a Trump second term. If the Democratic grassroots fails to clean house in their party, trust me when I tell you that President Trump and his GOP are preparing to do it for them.

More than enough dirty laundry has been aired to warrant further investigations. And with Clinton loyalists removed from power at DOJ and Trump's independent power base - he owes nothing to no one - the authority and inclination to appoint a special prosecutor is ripe. Once that happens, the criminal probes could be deep and far reaching indeed, threatening to wipe out nearly the entire DNC political structure, and probably even drag in several state level party organizers. When the dust clears, America could find itself governed by a one-party state. That is unless the Democratic Party grassroots that made Bernie successful steps up to the plate and fights against the corrupt Clinton leadership to gain the right to lead.

I still think the Democratic Party can be reformed and is worth reforming. But if that fails, it must be replaced.

That still leaves the underlying problem of the corrupt civil, (as against political), administration that has so successfully supported the corrupt politicals; I must add, that that is not just an American problem.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

A bit flippant for you ToB, that's more my style.... Talked with someone very close to the HRC transition team today. No one saw this coming. No one yet has a plan. No lecturing is required. We were wrong and lost 1986 Boston Red Sox style. The ball went though our legs in the 10th inning and we watched the winning run come in. It's fine to blame the groundskeeper during the game, but when the game is over you have to have a short memory and plan for the next series.

It's time to put the flame thrower away and allow the new president to set his agenda then work to nudge him in our direction. I think Obama, HRC and DJT all set a proper tone today. I'm deeply concerned but we won't really know anything until he takes office, appoints his staff, sets his 100 day agenda and appoints his cabinet members.

You ain't kidding. They never saw it coming because they never took time to understand really who they were running against and the source of his appeal. It was far easier to insult Trump supporters and to paint them as subhuman so as to make the social costs of support so high that folks chose to lie to each other and pollsters rather than to risk being called a racist, xenophobe, misogynist homophobe, etc. This has to be the worst electoral strategy in the history of American elections and the outcome proves it beyond a doubt as far as I am concerned.

Live by identity politics, die by it too.

The Democratic Party as currently organized is a zombie, a dead man walking. Its only hope is for the Clintonistas to be purged and the leadership to be replaced by Sanders people. If they aren't, then you can count on practically the whole of the Democratic leadership down even into the state level to be subject to intensive investigative scrutiny leading many to eventual arrest and conviction.

I think if we fail to clean house in the Democratic Party, if we allow the Clinton family to remain entrenched in the DNC and maintain control of all the levers of significance, they will continue to starve out any sort of political challenger and ensure a Trump second term. If the Democratic grassroots fails to clean house in their party, trust me when I tell you that President Trump and his GOP are preparing to do it for them.

More than enough dirty laundry has been aired to warrant further investigations. And with Clinton loyalists removed from power at DOJ and Trump's independent power base - he owes nothing to no one - the authority and inclination to appoint a special prosecutor is ripe. Once that happens, the criminal probes could be deep and far reaching indeed, threatening to wipe out nearly the entire DNC political structure, and probably even drag in several state level party organizers. When the dust clears, America could find itself governed by a one-party state. That is unless the Democratic Party grassroots that made Bernie successful steps up to the plate and fights against the corrupt Clinton leadership to gain the right to lead.

I still think the Democratic Party can be reformed and is worth reforming. But if that fails, it must be replaced.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Why would you be so sure of that? A Supreme Court that decides fetuses have constitutional protections would not let the issue devolve to states. You're assuming they'll just lift the penumbra. I think a conservative court could be much more creative and hand a fetus due process rights, creating an instant ban in all US states, territories, and overseas possessions.

It's more of the same scare tactics Democrats and liberal activists have come to rely on by default. There's nothing to concern ourselves and we can go back to our lives with no fear that should we want an abortion, morning-after pill, IUD, Depo-Provera, the pill, damns, condoms, sponges or even those funny eyeglasses they issued me in the army, that all those services will be there for us just as they have before ('73 and some time prior).

Look it; we had 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush I and 8 years of Bush 2. These were pro-life presidents and each had at some point in their administrations enough legislative mojo to pass some rather sizable bills with far reaching effects. Yet in all those years where these stridently pro-life presidents served, no serious or successful attempt has been made to overturn RvW and women have maintained consistent access to the full range of reproductive health options available. In and between those administrations, abortions have remained legal, widely available and at little or no charge to the persons receiving the services.

There is ZERO support for an "instant ban" and anyone who attempts to run such legislation now or in the next administration will be pissing into the wind. You folks do know that the "struggle" for reproductive rights is yet another of these false controversies used to gin up donations and attention to left/liberal activist groups? You do know it's a false controversy to keep us distracted and at each others throats, don't you?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

even if roe v wade goes, the issue would devolve to the states.

Why would you be so sure of that? A Supreme Court that decides fetuses have constitutional protections would not let the issue devolve to states. You're assuming they'll just lift the penumbra. I think a conservative court could be much more creative and hand a fetus due process rights, creating an instant ban in all US states, territories, and overseas possessions.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

P.S. If anyone happens to have lunch with someone at the top of the democratic party, please point out that their only job was to elect people to offices, and they have quite literally lost it all in a multi-year complete and total failure. They may wish to reconsider their career choice.

A bit flippant for you ToB, that's more my style.... Talked with someone very close to the HRC transition team today. No one saw this coming. No one yet has a plan. No lecturing is required. We were wrong and lost 1986 Boston Red Sox style. The ball went though our legs in the 10th inning and we watched the winning run come in. It's fine to blame the groundskeeper during the game, but when the game is over you have to have a short memory and plan for the next series.

It's time to put the flame thrower away and allow the new president to set his agenda then work to nudge him in our direction. I think Obama, HRC and DJT all set a proper tone today. I'm deeply concerned but we won't really know anything until he takes office, appoints his staff, sets his 100 day agenda and appoints his cabinet members.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Robert Scheer's take...

The people Hillary Clinton derided as a “basket of deplorables” have spoken. They have voted out of the pain of their economic misfortune, which Clinton’s branch of the Democratic Party helped engender.

What you have is a defeat of elitism. Clinton’s arrogance was on full display with the revelation of her speeches cozying up to Goldman Sachs—the bank that caused this misery more than any other—and the irony of this is not lost on the people who are hurting and can’t pay their bills. This is a victory for a neofascist populism—scapegoating immigrants and Muslims—and if Bernie Sanders had been the Democrats’ candidate, I feel confident he would have won. We were denied the opportunity of a confrontation between a progressive populist, represented by Sanders, and a neofascist populist.

It’s a repudiation of the arrogant elitism of the Democratic Party machine as represented by the Clintons, whose radical deregulation of Wall Street created this mess. And instead of recognizing the error of their ways and standing up to the banks, Clinton’s campaign cozied up to them, and that did not give people who are hurting confidence that she would respond to their needs or that she gave a damn about their suffering. She’s terminally tone-deaf.

So too were the mainstream media, which treated the wreckage of the Great Recession as a minor inconvenience, ignoring the deep suffering of the many millions who lost their homes, savings and jobs. The candidate of Goldman Sachs was defeated, unfortunately by a billionaire exemplar of everything that’s evil in late-stage capitalism, who will now worsen instead of fix the system. Thanks to the arrogance of the Democratic Party leadership that stifled the Sanders revolution, we are entering a very dangerous period with a Trump presidency, and this will be a time to see whether our system of checks and balances functions as our Founding Fathers intended.

Make no mistake about it: This is a crisis of confidence for America’s ruling elite that far surpasses Nixon’s Watergate scandal. They were the enablers of radical deregulation that betrayed Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s contract with the American people in the wake of the Great Depression. The people are hurting, and regrettably, Trump was the only vehicle presented to them by either major party in the general election to register their deepest discontent. The Trump voters are the messenger; don’t demonize them in an effort to salvage the prestige of the superrich elite that has temporarily lost its grip on the main levers of power in this nation.

Thankfully, the Clinton era is over, and the sick notion that the Democratic Party of FDR needed to find a new home in the temples of Wall Street greed has been rudely shattered by the deep anger of the very folks that the Democrats had presumed to represent. That includes working-class women, who failed to respond to the siren song of Clinton, whom the democratic hacks offered instead of a true progressive like Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Yes, we need a female president, but not in the mold of Margaret Thatcher.

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

....
The dems f*'d themselves by letting the Clinton machine take it to where she did
...
This site has [HAD] been all about the underlying structural fiscal problems that face this country / world. No one administration can address that successfully.

I think Peter Theil's assessment of the country's problems was spot on....

will [agree] there - i also think Thomas Frank [transcript of the video below] is also spot-on with what's happened to the democrat 'ruling class' - as i've noted before and think is quite unassailable

with a hat tip to jesse's cafe americain:

07 October 2016

Thomas Frank: How the Democratic Party Betrayed and Abandoned the Middle Class

"The Democratic Party has turned its back on working people and now pursues policies that actually increase inequality.

The first piece of evidence is what’s happened since the financial crisis. This is the great story of our time. Inequality has actually gotten worse since then, which is a remarkable thing. This is under a Democratic president who we were assured (or warned) was the most liberal or radical president we would ever see. Yet inequality has gotten worse, and the gains since the financial crisis, since the recovery began, have gone entirely to the top 10 percent of the income distribution.

This is not only because of those 'evil Republicans,' but because Obama played it the way he wanted to. Even when he had a majority in both houses of Congress and could choose whoever he wanted to be in his administration, he consistently made policies that favored the top 10 percent over everybody else. He helped out Wall Street in an enormous way when they were entirely at his mercy.

He could have done anything he wanted with them, in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did in the ’30s. But he chose not to.

Why is that?


Thomas Frank

my answer?

is a question:

when the clinton's terms in office were done, where did they go 'home' to?

it wasnt some dusty ranch in arkansas - or texas - or some coastal town in maine or california - like every other president during my adult life has...

and within a couple years of the passage of NAFTA and repeal of Glass-Steagall,
they moved on up to the east side - to some multi-million dollar 'ranch' in chappaqua (with bill hangin with the homeys in the bronx) - when according to hillary, 'they were broke' ?

and somehow, within a couple years hill was elected as the 'freshman' senator from NY ?

after such a short period of residency?

tell me who else could've pulled that one off?

and tell me how that WASNT quid pro quo for their signing of
THE 2 most devastating pieces of legislation to have EVER f'kd-over the middle and working class (at least until the 'affordable' care act anyway)

and NONE of their propaganda aparatchix in the lamerstream media
have EVER had any questions about ANY of this?

[Ellen Z]

Re: Trump to win?

this is an interesting piece written in JANUARY of this year, about the trump phenomenon.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.c...esentment.html

I read Archdruid Report almost every week. If I recall correctly, that January essay was one of the most read, and most commented-on essays he has ever done. Throughout this year, I've noticed quite a few articles by other people that to my eye present similar ideas, toned down to be more generally acceptable.

I've been reading JMG regularly since 2009. I went on vacation with my family, bringing with me printouts of everything he'd posted from 2006-2008. (It's all still there on his website.) It was quite an experience, sitting on a tropical beach, sipping rum drinks, and reading about the possible/likely futures ahead of us.

JMG paints with a large-scale brush. I don't think precision and balance are his predominant virtues.... I often disagree with him. BUT he suggests new ideas that had never occurred to me before, more than anyone else I read.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

If you consider the [upper] management class as part of the salary class, then the author is correct. Otherwise, the salary class has lost defined-benefit pensions and paid overtime (it's remarkable the type of entry-levelish jobs that are considered exempt due to their "managerial/supervisory" nature); and has faced declining or stagnant wages due to outsourcing, off-shoring, and foreign labor.

The management class has one foot in the salary class and one foot in the investment class through often outrageous stock option grants.

it's also well worth reading his latest piece, written a week before the election.
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.c...can-dream.html

he also refers to piece below at a different website, entirely different in tone and providing a more personal level picture

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...e-talks-about/